• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A look back at a saner time

Lawn darts don't kill people, people kill people.

Protect your right to keep and bear lawn darts.

You can have my lawn darts when you pry my cold dead fingers from them.

Only dartaphobes would try to ban lawn darts.
 
haymarket said:
Lawn darts don't kill people, people kill people.

Protect your right to keep and bear lawn darts.

You can have my lawn darts when you pry my cold dead fingers from them.

Only dartaphobes would try to ban lawn darts.
Click to expand...


You forgot only a good lawn dart can stop a bad lawn dart

Your sarcasm is slipping a little
 
RetiredUSN said:
I wish certain agenda driven liberals would be honest enough to admit that we have a mental health problem instead of a gun problem.
Click to expand...

There is nowhere on earth that has low gun deaths and lax gun laws because of a great mental health system
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT_WxZ5GkJ0

It's kind of astonishing to look back at this and take in how much things have changed. A few children die from these things and we banned them. Yet guns kill countless kids and we can't even pass legislation that would pass the current interpretation of the second amendment like registrations and assault gun bans and background checks.

Imagine trying to ban these darts today. There's be lots of bleating and whining that it's "nanny state" and "taking away our freedumb" to do it. What happened to that US that used to care about its children?
Click to expand...


Great point.

Any sane country in the world would ban guns after one mass shooting.


The USA had 345 last year alone.


Imagine if there were 345 instances of a children's game killing a child in the USA last year.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT_WxZ5GkJ0

It's kind of astonishing to look back at this and take in how much things have changed. A few children die from these things and we banned them. Yet guns kill countless kids and we can't even pass legislation that would pass the current interpretation of the second amendment like registrations and assault gun bans and background checks.

Imagine trying to ban these darts today. There's be lots of bleating and whining that it's "nanny state" and "taking away our freedumb" to do it. What happened to that US that used to care about its children?
Click to expand...

He sounds like the head of the Keep Our Own Kids Safe organization.
 
Rich2018 said:
Great point.

Any sane country in the world would ban guns after one mass shooting.


The USA had 345 last year alone.


Imagine if there were 345 instances of a children's game killing a child in the USA last year.
Click to expand...

Would a sane country ban knives after one mass stabbing or ban trucks after one mass truck attack?

How would you go about banning guns in the US?
 
Rucker61 said:
Would a sane country ban knives after one mass stabbing or ban trucks after one mass truck attack?

How would you go about banning guns in the US?
Click to expand...

With a house-to-house search for them.
 
Rich2018 said:
Great point.

Any sane country in the world would ban guns after one mass shooting.


The USA had 345 last year alone.


Imagine if there were 345 instances of a children's game killing a child in the USA last year.
Click to expand...

collective bedwetting by other nations is not a sound argument to violate our constitutional rights

and lets jettison the BS-you all want to ban guns not because of the pathetically transparent facade you all spew (public safety) but because you think banning guns will stick it to voters who don't support the scumbag big government politicians you lefties want in office.
 
SDET said:
With a house-to-house search for them.
Click to expand...

My sarcasm detector is down for the night. Is this a joke or do you really want house by house gun consfication
 
Kal'Stang said:
The dishonesty in your post is quite blatant. I mean seriously? You straight out said that you wished pro-2nd Amendment people would "just be honest" and that they lie about the reasons that they believe what they do. If that's not assigning a reason/motive then I'm King Kong.

As for TD's post. I don't consider it hyperbole. This very thread started out about banning a product and annoyance that we can't pass a law to ban guns. It's right there in the OP. And you try and feign innocence when TD rightly calls it like it is? Pfft.
Click to expand...

Had to find you off-topic. This past hour — took notes — Aerial America — your Idaho — Smithsonian Channel — incredible from the air — one is there — the entire Snake River ecosystem —

1st potato billionaire — 70% of trout sold to America — world’s first nuclear power plant — world’s first nuclear meltdown —

Niagara of the West — Shoshone Falls — 46’ talker than Niagara — rich farm valleys — Thousand Springs Falls — that’s only 15 minutes —

On topic — we don’t usually get a returning poster make just that much difference as Korimyr has — we are Blessed for that — he’s caused me to reboot on his lean — I’m not ready to way in on the topic yet — I don’t know everything on this topic but I’m a quick learn —
 
Sampson Simpson said:
it's because of the constitution, and our culture is so ingrained with gun violence since our beginning. probably one of the only stupid things done by the framers in the bill of rights

I wish pro gun people would just be honest, just say its a constitutional right and I care more about me having guns than all the gun violence in this country. Instead, they have to lie and make dumb comments like I can't be safe without it, or dumb talking points like "guns don't kill people, people do" or how they ignore the absurd amounts of gun violence in this country like its not really a problem, etc
Click to expand...

All anyone ever needs to defend themselves and their home is a small handgun. It’s not about that now. If the NRA and its manufacturers lose all the revenue from selling weapons people don’t really need, to people who shouldn’t really be having them (certifiably crazy people, felons, terrorists, etc...), they would lose revenue. Can’t have that.
 
ataraxia said:
All anyone ever needs to defend themselves and their home is a small handgun.
Click to expand...

One, you don't know enough about guns to decide what is necessary for self-defense; two, defense is not the only legal use of firearms according to Congress.

It’s not about that now. If the NRA and its manufacturers lose all the revenue from selling weapons people don’t really need, to people who shouldn’t really be having them (certifiably crazy people, felons, terrorists, etc...), they would lose revenue. Can’t have that.
Click to expand...

That's happening now. When Trump won, sales slumped. Manufacturers really love loud and strident attempts for more gun control. Keep up the good work.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Why shouldn't I have the "freedumb" to use these darts to defend myself? I mean, the gunnie rabbits don't like being told they have to use pistols instead of giant assault guns to defend themselves, why can't I use these darts? They are obviously good at impaling things.
Click to expand...

You do have the freedom if you can hit anything with them.
 
ataraxia said:
All anyone ever needs to defend themselves and their home is a small handgun. It’s not about that now. If the NRA and its manufacturers lose all the revenue from selling weapons people don’t really need, to people who shouldn’t really be having them (certifiably crazy people, felons, terrorists, etc...), they would lose revenue. Can’t have that.
Click to expand...

its a gut buster watching someone who both wants to ban guns and who really has never demonstrated any evidence of having any experience with guns, telling experts what they need.
 
Rucker61 said:
One, you don't know enough about guns to decide what is necessary for self-defense; two, defense is not the only legal use of firearms according to Congress.



That's happening now. When Trump won, sales slumped. Manufacturers really love loud and strident attempts for more gun control. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Gun control passes every year in some part of the country. Looks like someone is listening to those loud voices
 
TurtleDude said:
its a gut buster watching someone who both wants to ban guns and who really has never demonstrated any evidence of having any experience with guns, telling experts what they need.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing experts with people who are just salesmen and lobbyists.

Here is what a four-star general has to say about this. I am pretty sure neither you nor any of those NRA lobbyists and salesmen are going to have any more experience than this guy:

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.

We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our civilian population.”
- Gen. Stanley McChrystal
Click to expand...

Is that clear enough, Mr “Expert”?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
I think you are confusing experts with people who are just salesmen and lobbyists.

Here is what a four-star general has to say about this. I am pretty sure neither you nor any of those NRA lobbyists and salesmen are going to have any more experience than this guy:



Is that clear enough, Mr “Expert”?
Click to expand...
That .223 round with a 55 gr FMJ bullet is likely the least powerful and effective centerfire cartridge commonly used by rifle owners in the US. My .300 WSM with an expanding bullet was designed to be capable of taking down a 1500 lb moose with one shot whereas the little .223 is so weak in comparison that it's not legally for hunting even whitetail deer in most states. Imagine what a 168 gr expanding bullet traveling at 3220 FPS would do to a human body. Every deer hunting rifle in the US is more powerful and more damaging to a human body than the .223.

The .223 is far less powerful than the .308 or .30-06 that were used in our previous service rifles. I wonder why the general didn't note that the .223 was selected for power but for logistics. A soldier can carry more ammunition in .223 than in the larger, heavier calibers.

If you would bother to actually learn something about firearms rather than spending your time fallaciously appealing to authority you wouldn't embarrass yourself so often with posts like this.
 
Chillfolks said:
My sarcasm detector is down for the night. Is this a joke or do you really want house by house gun consfication
Click to expand...

I'm saying if the gun grabbers had their way, that's what we would get.
 
ataraxia said:
I think you are confusing experts with people who are just salesmen and lobbyists.

Here is what a four-star general has to say about this. I am pretty sure neither you nor any of those NRA lobbyists and salesmen are going to have any more experience than this guy:



Is that clear enough, Mr “Expert”?
Click to expand...

four star generals don't know much about civilian weapons. I was an alternate for the US Olympic teams and a firearms instructor for the DOJ. who do you think is a better shot-me or that general?
I have a law degree from one of the very top law schools in the USA, I have taught constitutional law at very good law schools and lectured on the second amendment as well. I have been a guest instructor at two of the top firearms training facilities in the USA. I think I'd destroy that general in any contest involving shooting firearms or discussing firearms laws.

That Dem fluffing general -why don't I hear him demanding CIVILIAN COPS not carry those weapons? He's a FOS political hack
 
Rucker61 said:
That .223 round with a 55 gr FMJ bullet is likely the least powerful and effective centerfire cartridge commonly used by rifle owners in the US. My .300 WSM with an expanding bullet was designed to be capable of taking down a 1500 lb moose with one shot whereas the little .223 is so weak in comparison that it's not legally for hunting even whitetail deer in most states. Imagine what a 168 gr expanding bullet traveling at 3220 FPS would do to a human body. Every deer hunting rifle in the US is more powerful and more damaging to a human body than the .223.

The .223 is far less powerful than the .308 or .30-06 that were used in our previous service rifles. I wonder why the general didn't note that the .223 was selected for power but for logistics. A soldier can carry more ammunition in .223 than in the larger, heavier calibers.

If you would bother to actually learn something about firearms rather than spending your time fallaciously appealing to authority you wouldn't embarrass yourself so often with posts like this.
Click to expand...

I don't know what is funnier-gun haters who know nothing about guns or that general who was forced to resign for denigrating civilian leadership. Try as I might I couldn't find any evidence that this guy actually was a combat infantryman.
 
Rucker61 said:
That .223 round with a 55 gr FMJ bullet is likely the least powerful and effective centerfire cartridge commonly used by rifle owners in the US. My .300 WSM with an expanding bullet was designed to be capable of taking down a 1500 lb moose with one shot whereas the little .223 is so weak in comparison that it's not legally for hunting even whitetail deer in most states. Imagine what a 168 gr expanding bullet traveling at 3220 FPS would do to a human body. Every deer hunting rifle in the US is more powerful and more damaging to a human body than the .223.

The .223 is far less powerful than the .308 or .30-06 that were used in our previous service rifles. I wonder why the general didn't note that the .223 was selected for power but for logistics. A soldier can carry more ammunition in .223 than in the larger, heavier calibers.

If you would bother to actually learn something about firearms rather than spending your time fallaciously appealing to authority you wouldn't embarrass yourself so often with posts like this.
Click to expand...

The 5.56 m4 is the infantry warriors weapon. To suggest it is not a lethal killing machine is freaking hilarious
 
vegas giants said:
The 5.56 m4 is the infantry warriors weapon. To suggest it is not a lethal killing machine is freaking hilarious
Click to expand...

That you took this away from my post is typical.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT_WxZ5GkJ0

It's kind of astonishing to look back at this and take in how much things have changed. A few children die from these things and we banned them. Yet guns kill countless kids and we can't even pass legislation that would pass the current interpretation of the second amendment like registrations and assault gun bans and background checks.

Imagine trying to ban these darts today. There's be lots of bleating and whining that it's "nanny state" and "taking away our freedumb" to do it. What happened to that US that used to care about its children?
Click to expand...

That's because gun lovers want this to be the wild west and have an infatuation with shooting people.
 
ryzorsden said:
That's because gun lovers want this to be the wild west and have an infatuation with shooting people.
Click to expand...

That you believe this tells us you don't know about the wild west or what pro-gun people really want.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom